[OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[John Smith]

On 19 July 2010 06:44, Peteris Krisjanis <pecisk at gmail.com> wrote:
> So, problem is, while ODBL is fine as SA license (for data that is),
> CT requires to give OSMF rights to republish data under license which
> so far by CT can be also non-share-alike, right?

The CT is also likely to conflict with cc-by data...

> Will it be a problem to add small addition to this section 3 "or
> another share alike free and open license"? Or it will destroy
> someone's dream about publishing those data under BSD like or PD some
> day? :)

If people were being honest they wouldn't try to sneak things in like this...